March 11, 1998

  To:North York Community Council

 From:George M. Dixon,

City Solicitor, North York

 Subject:Appeal of Muzzle Order served January 6, 1998, to Ms. Darlaine Mathews of 147 Northover Street in the Community of North York, Ward 7

 Purpose:

 To report on an application for an exemption to the dog muzzling requirements of North York By-law 32823.

 Financial Implications:

 There are no financial implications for the City.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that the request for an exemption be granted based upon the fact that there is no evidence to indicate that the dog is aggressive other than while it is protecting its own property.

 Background:

 The former City of North York enacted Muzzling By-law 32823 on July 10, 1996. The by-law requires a muzzle order to be issued to the owner of a dog where the Chief Animal Control Officer has reason to believe that the dog has bitten a person or a domestic animal on two occasions. Where an order to muzzle has been issued, the by-law further requires the owner to muzzle the dog except when it is on the property of the owner.

 Discussion:

 The issuance of the Muzzle Order to Ms. Mathews is based upon the receipt of two separate dog bite incidents to human victims reported by the Public Health Department. In the first incident, the North York Public Health Department received a report of a dog bite on September 24, 1997, to a postal carrier making a delivery on the dog owner's property. The second incident occurred on December 28, 1997 to a tenant walking past the dog. On January 6, 1998, a 'Notice to Muzzle' order was issued to Ms. Mathews, 147 Northover Street in the Community of North York.

The two bite reports received for the dog owned by Ms. Mathews were as a result of the dog being territorial and protecting its property. The North York Animal Centre has no other record of complaints regarding the dog owned by Ms. Mathews and there have been no reports of the dog running at large or acting in an aggressive manner while being walked by the owner.

 Conclusions:

 It is therefore recommended that the request for an exemption from the muzzle order be granted in view of the fact that the incidents occurred while the dog was protecting its territory and furthermore, the muzzle order is not applicable while the dog is on its own property.

 Contact Name:

 Carl Bandow, Administrator,

North York Animal Centre

Phone: 395-7086 Fax: 395-7090

E-mail: CNY_1F_2F.LEGAL:CARL

George M. Dixon

City Solicitor, North York